I know! It's hard to believe! Why, any of the riff-raff can just charge in and start a blog anymore. You write a book or a few, do some internationally recognized research in evolution, and suddenly you get cocky and think you have the talent to write a blog. Back in the day when I started in this, I had to struggle with none of that. And I liked it!
Despite his awesome handicaps, it is a pretty good blog.
I especially like this image from his book, Why Evolution is True(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll):
So…no transitional forms, huh? Look at that australopithecine between modern Homo and Pan. It's definitely not a chimp — the pelvis alone would tell you that — yet it's also definitely far from fully human. Very cool.
- Log in to post comments
Those fossils were just put there by Jesus to confuse you. And you totally fell for it. Lulz!
This nicely shows the evolution of the missionary position.
Here's the crucial thing: One can always say that it's not a transitional form. Or point out that it wasn't on the line to humans. Or ask for the rest of the transitional forms.
It's so easy an IDiot or cretin can do it.
If you're Behe, you pretend that a designer would produce modifications in exactly the manner that non-teleological evolution can do it.
I'd point out again, it's so easy a Michael Behe can do it. Unfortunately, it's the same as saying it's so stupid that they can't help but fall for it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Finally, someone with a sensible blog! Just kidding PZ.
It's not transitional, it only shows a giant monkey with a deformity for being vaccinated with timerosal :P
But now there's TWO gaps in the fossil record!!!!
[Ouch. Even pretending to be that stupid burns.]
Where are the other transitional forms. That's like putting up a picture of eggs and flour, batter, and a cake and calling them transitional forms. These are just others of gods creations that went extinct like the DODO. Who do you think you are fooling with these "transitions"??
I always knew I was different. Looks like I'm a throwback to the australopithecine days.: short, squat and no neck.
But why are there still pygmies & dwarfs?
I'm sorry to be all nitpicky, but the "transitional forms" canard has to do with descent of one species from another. Neither humans nor Australophithecines are descended from Pan troglodytes. If this is supposed to be a transitional fossil thing, it's like, uhh, wrong.
Cervantes: I think the one in the middle is supposed to be Michael Egnor.
Oh no, picture of a kitten. Cute mammals versus cephalopods. Decisions.
I noticed there weren't as many comments as over here.
No trouble to spot evolution in humans. Visit a few small inshore fishing communities here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and you will notice that the men will look a bit different at first, until you realize that they all have short legs. Men that are 6 foot tall will have a 28 to 30 inch inseam. A lower center of gravity is beneficial in a small boat.
No, I can't cite a study, I'm afraid, but anybody who has ever visited the community of Bay de Verde will confirm this.
So Newfie, how do you account for the neck wattles in the Republican Senatorial caucus?
hunting buddies for Dick Cheney
#13
What about Innsmouth?
take it outsmouth?
tl;dr
Those aren't wattles... what's the plural of scrotum?
I still don't understand why fundagelicals get so up in arms about the possibility of being 'related' to apes.
What's so bad about apes? They're freakin' adorable, and they don't talk, so they're already above fundies on my ladder of like-ability.
Scrota.
There are kittens? Sounds like my kind a place.
A blog? Perhaps. But does he have a posse?
It's not that first step, but that if you make the first step, you have to go whole hog. That brings pond scum and full circle into the mix for them.
*from left to right: Human, PIGMY, DWARF.
@ Petey
It's a tough world for half-baked cakes.
If that's a dwarf, where are the other six?
:)
It should be amusing to see how the Three Stooges explain this away with goddidit.
I have a blog. It has one post. That was back in August. Just sayin'...
What's a "pan"? A chimpanzee?
Yes, the pond scum and all of that jazz. Oh, that and the fact that it disproves everything that they're so feverishly clinging to...
I want to know why the Pan looks totally pissed off, and the transitional just looks, well, pissed. As for old Homo Sap. up there - he's obviously just happy to be there. Smilin' inanely and all.
Hah! You had one missing transitional form before, now you've got TWO missing transitional forms! Silly evolutionist! :)
Sorry, this is ENTIRELY OT, but: have you seen this? A composer (the Hullabaloo writer and sometime Pharyngula commenter who uses the nym "Tristero" on line) is about to premiere his Darwin-inspired work The Origin.
In one of his books, the Atheist Pope Dawkins expressed the hope that evolutionary theory might one day inspire art just as, in earlier ages, religious belief helped generate great human works. Now, personally, I could give a rats's arse what the Atheist Pope thinks (I am a protestant atheist). But maybe his wish is in the process of coming true.
Christians know apes don't go to heaven, therefore evolution = no life after death. They're too cowardly to accept this reality, so they refuse to throw out their "people were magically created to be separate from nature" myth.
Of course the other reason millions of Christians reject evolution is because they're just plain stupid.
"Christians know apes don't go to heaven"
According to an episode of American Dad, gorillas who know sign language get into heaven.
No pets though...or sentient robots.
So cool, but more australopithecines! For me they are the most interesting part of the hominid tree....
Newfie @ 13
Well, I can't cite a source either, but the very big Polynesians were apparently selected for great size by who was taken along (in small groups) on their ambitious migratory canoe trips.
"Christians know apes don't go to heaven"
Though ... I was told once that there was one animal in heaven. A white horse. He knew this because it says (I guess) in the Bable, that Jesus will come back on a white horse. Talk about not getting an euphemism.
and if they outbred a previous indigenous population, the human population on those islands would have evolved.
Gotta say, nice clean layout and good color choice. Red focuses, blue creative? Could use a bit more contrast in the fonts but otherwise it is pretty good.
The Tangata Maori (Polynesians) were discoverers, they were the first human inhabitants of their Pacific Island groups.
The seafaring life would, I presume, exert harsh selection pressures on humans.
You're confused Vic. The white horse is muslim lore. :)
Wow... with hips that big... that's one huge ass!
Great! With time, though, it should evolve a better design. I mean, surely that cheesy bright red gradated bar that might have had an evolutionary advantage in the past (like, a decade), now is inconsequential, even detrimental, to its survival.
Heh, from Coyne's blog:
Don't forget about Zinjanthropus!
I really hate when creationists say that, because it means you have to spend a hell of a long period of time explaining exactly what a transitional form is, which will eventuate in them not listening and make the same assertion based on their own definition. A few months back, a Christian objected to my mentioning that Tiktaalik was a transitional form because the bone structure in it's wrist doesn't make it a candidate for direct ancestry. How can you even begin to educate someone when their idea is so narrow? Even in Your Inner Fish, Shubin states that Tiktaalik's chances of being an ancestor was extremely unlikely. Unsinkable Rubber Ducks Anyway, it's good to see Coyne has a blog. I've subscribed and await with great interest any future posts he makes.
They are clearly transitional forms. Look at the shading. I've seen a lot of photoshops in my day, these are not photoshoped.
Your point?
We all know that. Mohammed, who is Jesus's best mate, rode it up there for him.
Damn, where are we when even Sam Harris has started doing Poes.
Sadly, I suspect Creationists have the same lack of insight and visualization as many others in the population do. As a product developer, we know that it's often difficult to convey a concept to the sales and marketing departments without making an exact replica of the item in question. Some people just don't have any visualization skills whatsoever...
I don't understand why people can look at any skeleton of any mammal and not realize that it is a variation on a theme.
It's too damned obvious.
Werd, I was at an exhibition on evolution recently and they had a series of different skeletal arms. Not only did they look similar, but without looking at the labels I mistook a chimpanzee arm for a human arm and vice versa. It's so damn obvious that one has to poke their eyes out to not see it.
"Why, any of the riff-raff can just charge in and start a blog anymore. You write a book or a few, do some internationally recognized research in evolution, and suddenly you get cocky and think you have the talent to write a blog."
Next thing you know he'll be on Facebook!! What is the world coming to?
I prefer to look at zygotes from chimps, humans, and fish. The similarities in roundness is uncanny. This of course connects us to the planets and water drops. Aren’t we about 62% water with some planetary material? When will these creationists wake up!
While I doubt that I will ever have anything to say on this site, I am bookmarking it.
They had animations based on that transition at the Lucy exhibit, which I finally got to see yesterday.
A young stranger, in her teens I'm guessing, walked right up to me out of the blue and asked whether I had seen it yet. I said there had been such a crowd in front of the screens, I had skipped it, planning to double-back in a little bit. She related excitedly how Lucy's rib cage formed a triangle, and how that affected the structures underneath it, which in turn affected her walking. She was almost breathless with excitement in telling me the story she had just seen depicted on the screen. Clearly, it connected profoundly with her.
I'm hoping that yesterday, I witnessed the spark that launched a budding anatomist (or other kind of scientist would be ok, too :).
Why Evolution is True?
I thought science was in an ever-changing state of flux and their were no absolutes such as "true" or "truth". What's true today may not be true tomorrow right? I mean the whole thing could collapse tomorrow if a few more 70 million year-old T.Rex bones with soft tissue and red blood cells turn up. I'm surprised that Schweitzer's discovery alone didn't seal the coffin.
*rolls eyes*
The whole thing will not be collapsing tomorrow. If you are surprised, then you need to learn more biology. What Mary Schweitzer actually found would be a good place to start.
Alan @57
Why, what evolutionary problem is there with 70Myo T. Rex bones?
Also, the notion that soft tissues are preserved after so long is doubtful.
You're right, there is no such thing as absolute truth in science. However, certain things can be more true than others. To say the Earth is a sphere is more true than to say it's flat. The Earth is closer to pear shaped, an oblate spheroid if you prefer. However, the Earth approximates a sphere to within one part in 300.
In a similar way, evolution is closer to the unattainable "absolute truth" than anything else presented. It's certainly closer than a 2,500 year old creation myth swiped from the Babylonians and given a Hebraic whitewash.
Coyne's site looks great. Always wondered how cats purr.
Thalarctos, I was there on Saturday. I loved the animation you mentioned and the chance to see Lucy herself; goosebumps.
take it outsmouth?